|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
174.52.243.0
In Reply to: RE: Push-back on Pono push-back posted by Sprezza Tura on January 27, 2015 at 17:42:26
Yeah, thanks. Same to you.
I posted over on ComputerAudiophile . . . crickets. I guess they're too busy arguing JPlay-JRMC, measurements-DBTs, and DSD 256 to give shit about better files and mastering.
Time to go buy another album from Pono.
Follow Ups:
... but persistent arguing AGAINST better sound quality is pure idiocy. The reasons could be different - bad systems, bad hearing, brains turned to stone - but the result is exactly the same.
Even more so, when it's done in places like this forum, that's supposed to provide an environment where people, who strive FOR better sound quality, come to share their experiences.
I wonder if Neil Young understands that it is really the 192 digital filter that makes 24/192 sound good, and only a little bit the higher sample-rate?
I doubt it.
" ...it is really the 192 digital filter that makes 24/192 sound good, and only a little bit the higher sample-rate?"
This is simply not true. Furthermore, this oversimplifies the problem and misses the essence of how digital audio works. There are two filters involved, one used in recording and one used in playback. These filters will have different effects on the analog output that one hears.The record filter used for 44 kHz sampling has an impossible task to do: it must severely attenuate audio signals above 22 kHz or there will be aliasing distortion which will corrupt the purity of musical tones, it must have a narrow transition band so that it won't remove high frequency content and strip instruments of their natural brilliance and air, and finally it must have a wide transition band so that any ringing is short term and doesn't disrupt perception of imaging and sound stage. These criteria are mutually incompatible at 44.1 kHz. If one uses a recording filter designed for 192 kHz sample rate at 44.1 there will be severe aliasing distortion. This will be easily seen on a spectrum plot of a square wave as spurious tones below the fundamental frequency, and heard as "fuzz" on the sound that changes in character with a slight deviation of square wave frequency. If one listens to a square wave sweep tone with aliasing one can easily hear "birdies" going down in pitch, something that does not happen with proper filtering. Of course, these effects also happen with music.
The playback filter will not be able to undo the effects of the recording filter, the best it can do is not make matters worse. It can also change the type of distortion one gets in some cases, i.e. mild aliasing or mild ringing can be reduced by rolling off highs. Whether this is an improvement or not will depend on the original recording, the playback system and the listener's tastes.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Edits: 01/29/15
Aliasing distortion is not a particular issue IME, only in measurements and on paper. In real-life, the analog filters and system filters it nicely. Try a NOS DAC sometime.
You are confusing alias distortion with image distortion. Alias distortion occurs when digitizing an analog signal or downsampling a digital signal. Image distortion occurs when upsampling a digital signal or converting it to analog. These have very different audible effects. With 44 Khz digital, alias distortion creates spurious frequencies in the band below 22 kHz. Image distortion at 44 kHz creates spurious frequencies in the band above 22 kHz. Alias distortion is grossly audible with test tones and not difficult to hear on music with lots of high frequency content that should have been filtered. Image distortion is harder to discern unless there is a lot of high frequency non-linearity on the part of the playback chain.
I base my comments on both theory and practice. I have generated test dones and done various sample rate conversions and measured and listened to the results. I have done the same conversions with music and listened to the results. It is not particularly hard to hear these effects if one experiments with sample rate conversions, starting with a pure analog signal or a high resolution digital file. It is much harder, if not impossible, to isolate these effects by purchasing the same recording in multiple formats because there is no visibility to what was done by the mastering engineer.
The filtering damage that Neil Young is concerned about happens in the recording process at 44 Khz. There is no magic that his or any other player can apply to restore the music that was thrown away and/or butchered during the conversion to 44 kHz.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
sigh
of higher quality files for (as you put it), the "unwashed masses."
But for "(us)" and I use that loosely, - (people who care about quality), - there's no excuse NOT to be praising this.
Personally, - I do believe that if people are exposed to higher quality experiences, they will both enjoy them, and may even take some steps to invest in them.
Although in the article, - I don't recall the mention of any specific names of any audiophiles who are poo-pooing on the player.
Lastly, - it is human nature, (and audiophile nature turned up to 10), to attack each other and fight amongst ourselves through a religious cult of personality, - than to stand united against crap.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
N/T
+1000.
Some of the wretched posts here are puzzling...but not that surprising that I know good and well that in regards to Computer Audio, the vast majority here are far more into the Computer part, and music is something they have put up with while they tweak the shit out of their sound processors.
That is just about the most concise, and accurate, way that you've written that bit of truth.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
thank you sir.
nt
Reading the various computer audio fora gives me the strong impression that most folks favor higher resolution files and better mastering. So why piss on Pono? Just weird . . .
then again, I may have misread what's important to computer audiophiles.
Oh, wait . . . it's the COMPUTER that matters! I'm such an idiot. I'll show myself out now.
Nobody here really cares either. Except for those who are apparently kept up at night worrying about the public's perception of audiophiles. The only interesting thing about your original post is that ST didn't get the scoop on you.
Idiotic. The thin Rocky Mountain air is probably not reaching what is left of yours atrophied brain.
Edits: 01/27/15
Not quite as idiotic as your daily Pono rants. But please, keep us all posted. Everyone is terribly worried about what people are saying about audiophiles. We wouldn't want to miss hearing about the next time somebody posts an anti-Pono opinion in their blog.
Newsflash..I don't give a snot what people think of audiophiles...
how desire for better files and mastering gets conflated with audiophile vanity
:\
Could not have said it better.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: